Paper crown when Charles takes reign

Page Tools

There are constitutional issues for Australia if a king's wife
cannot be a true queen, writes Gerard Henderson.

Thank God, Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles (despite rumours to the
contrary) is not a Catholic. Otherwise there would be no suggestion
of a marriage between Prince Charles (the future king of the United
Kingdom, Australia and more besides) and his mistress of long
standing.

The 1701 Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic from
acceding to the throne, and which prevents the heir to the throne
from marrying a Catholic, is still on Britain's statute books.

The Prince of Wales, as a single man, is free to enter into any
heterosexual union, provided a Catholic is not involved, even a
marriage of the morganatic kind. In his authoritative study The
Monarchy and the Constitution, the British constitutional
historian Vernon Bogdanor defined a morganatic marriage as "one in
which the wife of the sovereign and any children who may be born of
the marriage are denied royal status and all the claims or
privileges that go with it".

For the past thousand years, the wife of the British king has
always had the title of queen. In a statement posted on the
Prince's Clarence House website last Thursday, it was announced
that "Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of
Cornwall after marriage" and that "it is intended that Mrs Parker
Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The
Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne". There was, however, no
mention of the "m" word.

Yet, after seven decades on the constitutional interchange
bench, the concept of a morganatic marriage is back in the news. In
1936 Edward VIII proposed to the British government that he be
allowed to enter into a morganatic union with the American-born
divorcee Wallis Simpson.

The idea was rejected by the British Conservative government,
led by Stanley Baldwin, and by a majority of what were then called
the Dominions - that is, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of the
Dominion prime ministers, no one was more opposed to the proposal
than the Catholic Joseph Lyons, who headed the United Australia
Party government. The UAP is the predecessor of the Liberal
Party.

Following the rejection of his proposal, Edward VIII abdicated
and was succeeded by his younger brother, who became George VI
(Queen Elizabeth's father).

According to the Clarence House statement, it is 'intended" that
Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title the "Princess Consort" when
Charles becomes king. Despite what some Australian commentators
have suggested, this event will occur - provided that the Prince of
Wales outlives his mother. There is no evidence that the Queen will
abdicate or that, in such a situation, Charles would pass on his
kingdom to his elder son William. That's not what monarchs do.

The move to establish the Duchess of Cornwall as Princess
Consort would, in effect, amount to a morganatic marriage - in that
the wife of the king would be denied full royal status. This would
almost certainly require legislation in the British Parliament and,
presumably, would involve formal consultations with those members
of the Commonwealth of Nations which happen to be constitutional
monarchies.

The royal family is embedded in British culture and history.
From a British perspective, the constitutional monarchy makes a lot
of sense. Consequently, it is understandable why the British want
to obtain the best possible result from Charles's personal
situation. However, it is quite an anomaly that Australia is
involved in the constitutional implications of a marriage between
two Brits - neither of whom has shown much interest in
Australia.

Charles has not visited Australia since 1994. It seems that he
was already disillusioned with Australia following Bob Hawke's
rejection of his overtures to become governor-general. During a
television interview with journalist Jonathan Dimbleby in June
1994, Charles said that he let it be known to the Hawke government
that he would like to represent the Queen in Australia. He was
disappointed by the rejection of his offer. Charles told Dimbleby:
"So, what are you supposed to think when you are prepared to do
something to help and you are just told you're not wanted?"

Charles was naive in making an offer. It is impossible to
imagine an Australian government in the late 1980s, either
Coalition or Labor, abandoning a practice in operation since the
final years of Robert Menzies' prime ministership and appointing a
British citizen/resident as governor-general. If Charles had
understood contemporary Australia, he would not have placed himself
in a situation where a refusal offends.

Charles will never be Australia's governor-general. Yet he is
next in line to become Australia's head of state, in which case his
wife will become the king of Australia's princess consort or, more
likely, the queen - assuming the morganatic option is not taken up
and Clarence House's "intention" does not become a fact of
(constitutional) life.

In spite of what many constitutional monarchists Down Under
argue, the monarch is Australia's head of state. As recently as
1997, the Buckingham Palace website declared: "A Commonwealth realm
is a country where the Queen is the Head of State. The Queen is
Queen not only of Britain and its dependent territories but also of
the following realms." Included in the list was Australia.
Monarchists in Australia objected to the Queen's job description
and the statement was removed by Buckingham Palace - intent, as
ever, on avoiding political controversy.

Bogdanor, who was given access by the Queen to the royal
archives at Windsor Castle, is not caught up in domestic debates.
In The Monarchy and the Constitution he wrote: "In Australia
the governor-general performs nearly all of the functions of a head
of state but is not himself or herself a head of state". Bogdanor
made it clear that "the sovereign is the head of state" of
Australia, among other nations.

The Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, understands this reality.
He told the journalist Bruce Stannard of The Canberra Times
last November: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am
her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the
full role." Quite so. It is the fact that Charles is next in line
to be Australia's head of state which involves Australia in the
constitutional saga about Charles formalising his personal
arrangements with a long-time flame.

It seems odd that Australia is constitutionally involved in
debates over kings or queens of a foreign nation. The British, like
the Americans, are long-term friends and allies. But this is no
reason why Australia should not have an Australian head of state -
who just might be a Catholic but who would never be married to a
consort.